Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
Lots of murder takes place under the right to privacy.
Thanks for the ping!
Have you lost your mind or just the ability to use reason?
I said that we do not have the right to murder just because it is done it private. I didn't say that it doesn't happen. Those caught murdering others are punished for it.
Get it? There is no right to do it.
The government will protect it's own should push come to shove. I have faith in the 2nd amendment to protect me and mine.
If that is what we are facing -- and I think that we are -- why are we focusing on Americans without shutting down the borders? Why aren't we bombing them into oblivion everywhere that they are found? Why are we still referring to their 'faith' as the religion of peace?
The feds haven't shut down the borders.
They haven't rounded up the illegals.
They haven't armed the pilots (to any measurable degree).
There are more IRS agents with guns pointed at us to make sure that we haven't cheated the government out of the tax on our Christmas bonus than there are INS agents with guns at the border to stop illegal immigration or drugs or terrorists from entering.
When the government exercises it's properly delegated authority to protect the nation, and we are still at risk, then a review of power should be looked at, but not until then.
Don't treat me as a potential terrorist when you haven't moved to stop them from entering the country.
The government is protecting it's own bloated ass, not yours or mine. Don't lose sight of that little fact.
I have no doubt that the government will protect itself, but I am not saying that my guns will protect me. I am saying that I don't want my government to disarm me in the name of fighting terrorism and thus rendering me unable to protect me and mine.
Taking a gun to a gunfight doesn't mean that you'll win, It only gives you a fighting chance. The government that does disarm me will be my enemy.
Answers to your questions:
"I've heard international calls only then it was international calls terminating in the U.S., then it was international calls originating in the U.S."
Yes, those are both international calls. They both involve signals traveling into the United States. If something foreign is invading your territory you have a right to inspect it.
"Where in the Constitution does it say that?" (that the president has the right to examine these international phone calls).
You really should read it for yourself.
Article II, Section I.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
"When called into actual service," see. And when were the armed forces called into service?
Go back to 2001:
"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
...
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
"All necessary and appropriate force." Got a problem with that? Talk to your elected representatives and senators.
I guess that also answers the "Who gets to decide who is a terrorist?" question.
This "debate" is settled in my mind. But I'm tired of always being on the defense. It is time we go in the offensive.
Non-Sequitur, please tell me what law, specifically, you think President Bush broke? I don't want to hear any, "Well, I don't know, but I'll leave that to an investigative committee."
Give it your best guess.
I don't see the paradox, as I detailed in #58.
The section that text appears under is titled "Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces." It says nothing about wiretaps or the NSA.
Please be advised that some FReepers are aware that what's really on the mind of some of the craziest and nastiest "anti-terrorism measures" posts is a disgustingly selfish concern: "How might this anti-terrorism measure affect my obtaining the illegal drugs I covet?"
Lincoln didn't violate the law when doing it.
Suspension of habeas corpus is a legislative power. Congress passed a measure that gave Lincoln his power.
In Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866), the Supreme Court held that the denial of habeas corpus to Milligan was in violation of the law. That doesn't mean that all denials of habeas were outside of the law, that is, some of the military detentions and denial of access to Article III courts was legal. But the Court held that Milligan's was not.
Any call with one end out of the US, regardless of who originated the call (makes sense, think "I'll call you back"); where warrantless targeting of the US end is somehow restricted.
I've asked a couple times, "Why draw the line there?" What if both of the terrorists are in the US? What about domestic terrorism? Why require warrants at all, where the objective is prevention? Not that I advocate this, but such surveillance shares the prevalanet "anything to stop terrorist attack" justification.
With regard to the legal justification for the warrantless targeting of domestics, the administration's arguments are well summed up in Assistant Attorney General's Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee.
I'll add a few ...
OKC - Murrah
DC Sniper
Columbine
The Bath School Bombing
Warrantless surveillance has been a tool of the WoD. I don't know if it still is. See 1975 Senate Hearings on NSA Activity.
The protection of the 4th amendment is an anacronism, compared with other countries; and in light of the erosions obtained in court, the protection of the 4th is fairly weak in practice.
" Do you honestly believe that the Islamo-fascists are capable of conquering the U.S.?"
With help from the progressives it may be so. Amen.
" Do you honestly believe that the Islamo-fascists are capable of conquering the U.S.?
And those competent authorities would be? The Liberal elites , of course. Maybe Hillary or Teddy Kennedy as Judge. Get a life my friend. Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.